NASCAR is still 4,000lb steel tube-frame production prototypes with heavily regulated 358ci pushrod V8s driving in counterclockwise circles for 3 hours. The product is unnecessarily weak.

That's how I see it.Although contrary to all the hype and from a european point of view where overhead cam multi valve engines are considered the way to go I think that there's nothing wrong with the much simpler to work on pushrod idea.If it's good enough for top fuel dragsters then it's good enough for most other applications too.I think that opening NASCAR up to mixed Euro/Jap/American production car grids BUT without limits or restrictors would still show that good old fashioned American engineering is best.

NASCAR engine rules until the seventies were based strictly on production available homologated engines. To equalize different production sizes, for many years NASCAR had an X pounds per inch cubed rule, which was supposed to allow smaller engines a chance against larger ones.Through the entire big-block era NASCAR had an absolute maximum inch cubed limit of 430 Inches Cubed.

During the sixties the factories started using the pound per inch limit to break the supposed "spirit" of the rules which is why for a time 405 inches cubed was being used.

The other extremely successful production saloon series in the U.S. had a strict homologation and inch cubed limit of 305 inches, during its best known years.

However up to the 1970's and before restrictors 'real racing' proved that there ain't no substitute for cubic inches.But then the rule makers forgot the other rule if it ain't broke don't fix it in the case of instead of relaxing the rules on engine capacity even further to allow more scope for development they then tightened them with restrictors and smaller engine size limits instead.

However up to the 1970's and before restrictors 'real racing' proved that there ain't no substitute for cubic inches.But then the rule makers forgot the other rule if it ain't broke don't fix it in the case of instead of relaxing the rules on engine capacity even further to allow more scope for development they then tightened them with restrictors and smaller engine size limits instead.

i understood that the change to restrictors was driven by the need to satisfy insurance and liability requirements, rather than a self-imposed 'drop the ball'-type move as you suggest. Once the cars were regularly running 200mph+ in race condition (and over 210 in qualifying) and the body aero shapes became more slippery the crashes were becoming more 'spectacular' (i use the word advisedly), but once cars started tearing areas of catch fencing down and jumping walls and nearly attaining low earth orbits then the restrictor became if not the best solution then certainly the most practicable at short(ish) notice......remember (and this goes back to our earlier contributions from phoenix101), if NASCAR were 'solely' in the business of providing yee-haw entertainment for luddites and rednecks then the safety features that have been brought in over the last 20 years would be unnecessary, as there's nothing like a bit of death or near-death or 'how did he escape that?!?!' to boost the ratings.To say the pushrod-based engine formula, albeit now with 'brand new' EFI, is 'not new technology' is perfectly fair, but to say it's obsolete or anachronistic is another matter entirely, and (i can only repeat) to dismiss oval racing as 'not proper racing' is short-sighted and narrow-minded in the extreme.....for every 'real' circuit in lots of countries, there's a dozen or more ovals that provide a venue for budget racers and fans to enjoy what they enjoy....there's more to life than watching a car go by and then waiting a minute or more to watch that car go by again .NASCAR know that they gain more by keeping in touch with their fanbase, which is why drivers coming through the ranks works so well for them, because lots of fans have seen 'their local hotshoe' make it to the big-time, and if NASCAR did drop the ball at all it was with the inception of the 'sticker-car' (not the car per se, just the 'this decal makes it a Toyota' thing) which they are addressing now on the back of the success of the NNS shells introduced in 2011.....it's almost like a return to 'win on Sunday, sell on Monday'....

MotoGP has had an allocated maximum fuel capacity for several seasons now, which limits maximum horsepower during races.

It's the only thing that stops Honda completely dominating the series. Although, if Ducati had sorted out their chassis they would probably match Honda on maximum BHP, if not usable maximum BHP!

Fuel does not tightly regulate horsepower/torque output over race distance(Group C?). The MSMA chose fuel limitations specifically b/c there is wide variance between the ideal fuel calculations and the performance of the machines.

Furthermore, you have it backwards regarding Honda. Fuel-limits are a difficult engineering challenge, and they allow companies like Honda and Yamaha to exploit technological advantages they wouldn't enjoy if different performance controls were used. The fuel limits are driving people away, thus, Dorna introduced a 24L limit for CRT teams. Naturally, the MSMA have refused to raise fuel capacity, and embrace bore limiting or rev limiting as the new de facto horsepower control.

Anyway, the sanctioning situation in MotoGP makes it unique in the world, though it is really just another unsuccessful revisit of Group C. The real tragedy with modern sanctioning is not that NASCAR is a spec series, but that racing fans everywhere drink the Kool-Aid. There was a time when sanctioning bodies tried new things. The FIA saw the sanctioning problems dawning on the horizon in the 1980s, and they used the gas crisis to introduce a new fuel limited form of endurance racing. No displacement limits, horsepower limits, cylinder counts, induction limits, etc. It was a huge success, but after the formula failed and IMSA with it, the world more or less gave up on alternative sanctioning. If you criticism modern sanctioning, race fans cling to their rapidly contracting industry, like a heroine addict clinging to his last hit.

Many new sanctioning methods have been discussed since Group C, but everyone just keeps going spec or BoP. It's pathetic. NASCAR is a symptom of the problem, not the reason. As I said before, they've swallowed the blue pill. Fine, but if you're going to live in the world of reality-TV racing, do something it. NASCAR's lack of substance and foresight, and their complete denial of the fact, is the result of company culture, imo. Thirty-years of enacting Sr.'s and Jr.'s plan. Now that they've done it, they have no clue how to proceed. Just selling kitsch retro-race cars, in a time when retro is fashionable, to aging baby-boomers who fantasize about the days of Detroit's dominance. The wistful pining for a bygone era stops the US car industry from developing brand and technology.

i understood that the change to restrictors was driven by the need to satisfy insurance and liability requirements, rather than a self-imposed 'drop the ball'-type move as you suggest. Once the cars were regularly running 200mph+ in race condition (and over 210 in qualifying) and the body aero shapes became more slippery the crashes were becoming more 'spectacular' (i use the word advisedly), but once cars started tearing areas of catch fencing down and jumping walls and nearly attaining low earth orbits then the restrictor became if not the best solution then certainly the most practicable at short(ish) notice......remember (and this goes back to our earlier contributions from phoenix101), if NASCAR were 'solely' in the business of providing yee-haw entertainment for luddites and rednecks then the safety features that have been brought in over the last 20 years would be unnecessary, as there's nothing like a bit of death or near-death or 'how did he escape that?!?!' to boost the ratings.

The racing as it was between Ford and MOPAR at the end of the 1960's seems to show less potential danger than today's bunched up packs of cars all running round together without enough speed differential to make a safe clean overtake and to open up a decent gap to provide some room around the cars.There seems to have been more than enough serious accidents involving spinning and flying cars under the recent regs of tightly packed so called racing compared to those better days of proper cars running at the realistic unregulated speed potential of the different production cars.

Just selling kitsch retro-race cars, in a time when retro is fashionable, to aging baby-boomers who fantasize about the days of Detroit's dominance. The wistful pining for a bygone era stops the US car industry from developing brand and technology.

How does any of that relate to the modern day idea of NASCAR compared to those better bygone days of real racing which really were better not just a fantasy of those who can remember them.

if NASCAR were 'solely' in the business of providing yee-haw entertainment for luddites and rednecks then the safety features that have been brought in over the last 20 years would be unnecessary, as there's nothing like a bit of death or near-death or 'how did he escape that?!?!' to boost the ratings.To say the pushrod-based engine formula, albeit now with 'brand new' EFI, is 'not new technology' is perfectly fair, but to say it's obsolete or anachronistic is another matter entirely, and (i can only repeat) to dismiss oval racing as 'not proper racing' is short-sighted and narrow-minded in the extreme.....for every 'real' circuit in lots of countries, there's a dozen or more ovals that provide a venue for budget racers and fans to enjoy what they enjoy....there's more to life than watching a car go by and then waiting a minute or more to watch that car go by again .NASCAR know that they gain more by keeping in touch with their fanbase, which is why drivers coming through the ranks works so well for them, because lots of fans have seen 'their local hotshoe' make it to the big-time, and if NASCAR did drop the ball at all it was with the inception of the 'sticker-car' (not the car per se, just the 'this decal makes it a Toyota' thing) which they are addressing now on the back of the success of the NNS shells introduced in 2011.....it's almost like a return to 'win on Sunday, sell on Monday'....

NASCAR obviously put air-restrictors on the vehicles for safety and insurance reasons. Since then, they have done everything in their power to tweak the rules to put competitors in a box so they get photo finishes, smashups, and plenty of yeehaw for the beer gallery. When those rules have negative consequences, they simply write new rules: 1. green-white-checker for "real finishes" 2. facile competition-yellow policy to bunch the cars up 3. lucky dog and other rules to reduce the carnage from racing to the line in a pack.

Few people have said that oval racing isn't real racing. That was something you inferred so you could get butt-hurt. I said NASCAR drive around in counterclockwise circles, using decades old technology, 34 weekends a year. They've been doing it since the 1950s, and now that national expansion has stagnated (something they should have predicted a decade ago), they have no back up plan. NASCAR is an advertisement so they are just going to work on the optics and shoehorn it into new media channels to expand the value of the show to sponsors. They focus on the fans........as long as the fans want to watch cars rub and wreck for 3 hours.

NASCAR is not taken credibly as a sanctioning force, and they've only recently gained global credibility as other entertainment companies have broken away from FIA sanctioning and crafted their own entertainment-based rulebooks (DTM, SuperGT, V8 Supers). This is the revolt of reality TV, and I'm certainly not the first person to point it out its questionable impact on racing. Reality-TV started b/c the writers struck. Reality-racing started b/c the sanctioning bodies suck. It is a stop-gap solution, and the first company to create a new stable sanctioning method is going to carve up market share and investment like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Obviously, I don't relish the thought of an American institution biting the dust as American car manufacturers did. NASCAR is headed down the road to ruin, and they have the pedal to the metal. They think they are diversified b/c they have several series with different optics, but in reality, they are a one trick pony. Fans are always left asking "why?".

How does any of that relate to the modern day idea of NASCAR compared to those better bygone days of real racing which really were better not just a fantasy of those who can remember them.

Like I said, addicts clinging to the last hit. The 358 OHV V8 and the high banks are the only vestiges from the golden era. They are afraid of the progress that made the American car industry a force in the first place.

Fuel does not tightly regulate horsepower/torque output over race distance(Group C?). The MSMA chose fuel limitations specifically b/c there is wide variance between the ideal fuel calculations and the performance of the machines.

Furthermore, you have it backwards regarding Honda. Fuel-limits are a difficult engineering challenge, and they allow companies like Honda and Yamaha to exploit technological advantages they wouldn't enjoy if different performance controls were used. The fuel limits are driving people away, thus, Dorna introduced a 24L limit for CRT teams. Naturally, the MSMA have refused to raise fuel capacity, and embrace bore limiting or rev limiting as the new de facto horsepower control.

Anyway, the sanctioning situation in MotoGP makes it unique in the world, though it is really just another unsuccessful revisit of Group C. The real tragedy with modern sanctioning is not that NASCAR is a spec series, but that racing fans everywhere drink the Kool-Aid. There was a time when sanctioning bodies tried new things. The FIA saw the sanctioning problems dawning on the horizon in the 1980s, and they used the gas crisis to introduce a new fuel limited form of endurance racing. No displacement limits, horsepower limits, cylinder counts, induction limits, etc. It was a huge success, but after the formula failed and IMSA with it, the world more or less gave up on alternative sanctioning. If you criticism modern sanctioning, race fans cling to their rapidly contracting industry, like a heroine addict clinging to his last hit.

Many new sanctioning methods have been discussed since Group C, but everyone just keeps going spec or BoP. It's pathetic. NASCAR is a symptom of the problem, not the reason. As I said before, they've swallowed the blue pill. Fine, but if you're going to live in the world of reality-TV racing, do something it. NASCAR's lack of substance and foresight, and their complete denial of the fact, is the result of company culture, imo. Thirty-years of enacting Sr.'s and Jr.'s plan. Now that they've done it, they have no clue how to proceed. Just selling kitsch retro-race cars, in a time when retro is fashionable, to aging baby-boomers who fantasize about the days of Detroit's dominance. The wistful pining for a bygone era stops the US car industry from developing brand and technology.

You prattle about others living in the past and you seem to think a glorified version of the old Mobil Economy Run is something special.

Pot calling the kettle black.

At the same time you imply that the modern version of dumbing down to the lowest common denominator is better.I have never seen anyone make supposed addicts look as good or intelligent as you have.

You prattle about others living in the past and you seem to think a glorified version of the old Mobil Economy Run is something special.

Pot calling the kettle black.

At the same time you imply that the modern version of dumbing down to the lowest common denominator is better.I have never seen anyone make supposed addicts look as good or intelligent as you have.

If they really want progress and something new then why not allow big capacities together with forced induction in homologated production cars.I'm sure NASCAR fans and the manufacturers would be happy enough to see who can come out on top in competition between Mercedes,Jaguar,BMW and GM with something like the CTSV allowed to be fitted with the LS 7 with supercharging (without restrictors) allowed and the Euro cars getting the option of proper manual transmissions that need more driver involvement and/or which can transmit more power to the wheels than the torque converter set ups in the stock Jag or the Merc.In which case road car buyers would benefit in being able to have those homologation options on the options lists when they buy those cars.Which surely should be what 'stock car' racing is all about ?.

Like I said, addicts clinging to the last hit. The 358 OHV V8 and the high banks are the only vestiges from the golden era. They are afraid of the progress that made the American car industry a force in the first place.

How does a 358 limit + restrictors have any connection to a past made up of unrestricted larger capacity engines and as I've said surely 'progress' should be all about making larger capacity production engines go the distance with forced induction instead of boring naturally aspirated engines with 358 capacity limits all regulated with restrictors.If that means redeveloping the tracks to allow the extra power to be used safely then that would also be a type of progress ?.

You prattle about others living in the past and you seem to think a glorified version of the old Mobil Economy Run is something special.

Pot calling the kettle black.

At the same time you imply that the modern version of dumbing down to the lowest common denominator is better.I have never seen anyone make supposed addicts look as good or intelligent as you have.

I've not asked for a return to Group C, in fact, I clearly pointed out that fuel-limiting, by itself, ultimately failed. MotoGP has not learned the lesson.

I would like the FIA or other sanctioning bodies to routinely create new experimental formulas. New formulas have nothing to do with past or present, but the practice of adding new formulas has been extinct for nearly two decades, hence I mentioned the past. There have been numerous sanctioning formulas suggested over the years, but even series on life support have failed to deviate from spec racing or BoP. Strange b/c BoP has failed consistently since the FIA/SRO first started using it in the mid 1990s, after equivalency more or less failed. BoP certainly hasn't done anything for FIA GT or Grand Am over the years. GT3 might change things, but it's difficult to say.

Not 100% sure, but F1 is supposedly going to try some new stuff in 2013. I'm looking forward to it.

NASCAR have gone spec. Fine. They want to control/own the product they sell to the manufacturers, sponsors, and media. As I've said repeatedly, I've never seen anyone accomplish so little with so much control. It's like telling Shaq to quit laying the ball up. He tells you to shut up b/c he scores more points than other centers. You tell him he could be dunking. But what do we know? We're just stupid fans. Not like NASCAR could make slam dunk product and still score more points than anyone else. NOOOOOO way too risky. The fans of the lay-up might get offended. Dunking might make the game get out of control.

Until somebody dunks on NASCAR, and makes them realize how completely inadequate they are. They will continue driving in circles, and applying their marketing formula to every series they purchase.

How does a 358 limit + restrictors have any connection to a past made up of unrestricted larger capacity engines and as I've said surely 'progress' should be all about making larger capacity production engines go the distance with forced induction instead of boring naturally aspirated engines with 358 capacity limits all regulated with restrictors.If that means redeveloping the tracks to allow the extra power to be used safely then that would also be a type of progress ?.

The restrictors are only used on the 2.5+ mile tracks. The 358 harkens back to the glory days b/c it uses pushrod OHV architecture and iron block. Until last night, the 358 was carburetted, as well. The 358 OHV persists under the pretense that it makes the noise the fans want. It does, but its not the only engine that makes the American V8 noise.

While I like your idea of deregulating the engines for short track, on a banked 2.5 mile trioval someone would die in the first 10 minutes. You're not going to create a track or a car that can handle 300mph smash ups, at least not a car that people want to see. Wouldn't be production relevant either. Maybe you could create a situation where the tires lost the battle with the wind at a certain speed, but that would be dangerous as hell. Long or short track, you've also got to figure out how to put the nix on traction control (I guess the McLaren ECU could do it). I don't think TC would be the end of the world, but TC would cause a schism in the fan base. People who like TC will stop watching. People who like TC won't stop watching if it isn't present.

How does a 358 limit + restrictors have any connection to a past made up of unrestricted larger capacity engines and as I've said surely 'progress' should be all about making larger capacity production engines go the distance with forced induction instead of boring naturally aspirated engines with 358 capacity limits all regulated with restrictors.If that means redeveloping the tracks to allow the extra power to be used safely then that would also be a type of progress ?.

The cars are really ancient in design, they are quite effective for about 20 laps then they need a new set of tyres!. The engines have got far more power than the cars can handle with their skinny 15" tyres.I have always liked the lower level series, less power and faster for longer on the tyres.

What this is all about is they aren't making engines that YOU want to see, I'm quite happy myself besides having proved many a time that the GM "LS" V8 series is superior to a quad cam Toyota V8 many a time - there is not one single area the Toyota is superior in losing in weight, power, size and a bit surprisingly, fuel consumption.

"Oh it's got pushrods and 2 valves, it must be a relic" ..... that is a prejudice not a fact.

In the wider world of international motor racing it seems to me, reinforced by comments here, that the presence (dominance?) of commercial considerations in racing reduces diversity in technical regulations, because no-one wants to be seen to chose the wrong option and fail. As a result, influence is used to ensure that everyone has the same chance of being successful, and receiving a return on their investment. This is why there is no longer a place for equivalence formulae in major series.

The result is spec, or psuedo-spec, racing that leads to scenes not unlike watching the local freeway (NASCAR?). It also leads to the diminishing returns seen in F1 where incredible amounts of cash are spent on ever smaller refinements of the proscriptive technical regulations. Technical breakthroughs and innovation are stifled, except for exotic solutions to racing-specific R&D.

I have a particular bee in my bonnet about control tyres, which I believe stifle racing by setting the performance limit of all the cars to the same level; the fact that deliberate tyre degradation has been introduced into F1 seems to support my view.

Spec facing isn't in itself a problem for me though; the Formula Ford Festival at Brands Hatch will always rate as some of the most exciting racing I've ever seen. The problems start when diverse competition is introduced, commercial or technical.

The constant dilemma: Natural selection by evolution improves the breed by killing off the uncompetitive, but that can only lead to domination by the fittest (Le Mans?). Equalisation to a level playing field widens success, but stifles innovation and leads to stagnation (NASCAR?).

A balance has to be found that suits the aims of the particular series.

I have a particular bee in my bonnet about control tyres, which I believe stifle racing by setting the performance limit of all the cars to the same level; the fact that deliberate tyre degradation has been introduced into F1 seems to support my view.

Spec facing isn't in itself a problem for me though; the Formula Ford Festival at Brands Hatch will always rate as some of the most exciting racing I've ever seen.

Ironic to your post, one of the reasons Formula Ford works so well is hard control tyres that the cars and drivers can go flat out for the entire race.

Tyre sizing and degradation are terrific things when you have mixed classes such as over-tyred 2 litres against under-tyred V8's such was the approximate formula for Group A back in the 80's, but for equivalent class cars such as F1 they should have no play in the results, let the cars and drivers go flat out from go to whoa.

Intentional tyre degradation evens up the field (and that's what they want these days for the "show") by slowing the fastest cars/drivers down and that is wrong.

Im totally with cheapy here and i have stated many times that making the tires wear artificially fast is a horrible idea. Give them hard tires that needs to be punished and heated exessivelly to generate grip. Now that would be great racing.

What is 'wrong' about it? Teams have to do what sponsors want because the sponsors are paying for it. If you want to run the team the way you want, you have to pay for it.

Likewise leagues are at the mercy of their customers. If you want to run some DARPA-esque free for all, you'd better find a way to pay for it.

Maybe because I come from a time seeing a car come from behind over 5 to 10 laps of hard driving and mount a challenge for position, now after 5 hard laps the tyres are 'Effed' and no challenge - 2012 doesn't look much better with the drop offs in lap times in race distance testing.

I don't believe there is any difference if a tyre degrades or not in terms of publicity for the tyre company, mind you I think Pirelli got some bad publicity last year because of degradation - if you consider any publicity to be bad that is, they might be happy their company was mentioned a lot.

I wasn't talking a free for all, I just want one set of tyres to last the whole race and have no dramatic bearing on the results.

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion, tyres have to be designed to do something, design them to not affect the results - how about we make wings out of polystyrene and have a light spray of fuel directed at them so they degrade and have to be replaced during the race.

As far as I'm concerned tyre companies have no business dictating the racing at any level...

"When asked if the laptime differences and degradation data put in into the window Pirelli was after to make the racing exciting, Hembery said: "Absolutely. That is what we want to do, and even the initial indications are that that will happen".

"A secondary consideration was that lowering the speed limit in the pits would have an effect on the strategies the teams employed during the races.It would most likely lead to them doing about one less pit stop in each race - which would be counter to the approach the sport is taking with tyre supplier Pirelli in trying to encourage multi-stop races".

The restrictors are only used on the 2.5+ mile tracks. The 358 harkens back to the glory days b/c it uses pushrod OHV architecture and iron block. Until last night, the 358 was carburetted, as well. The 358 OHV persists under the pretense that it makes the noise the fans want. It does, but its not the only engine that makes the American V8 noise.

While I like your idea of deregulating the engines for short track, on a banked 2.5 mile trioval someone would die in the first 10 minutes. You're not going to create a track or a car that can handle 300mph smash ups, at least not a car that people want to see. Wouldn't be production relevant either. Maybe you could create a situation where the tires lost the battle with the wind at a certain speed, but that would be dangerous as hell. Long or short track, you've also got to figure out how to put the nix on traction control (I guess the McLaren ECU could do it). I don't think TC would be the end of the world, but TC would cause a schism in the fan base. People who like TC will stop watching. People who like TC won't stop watching if it isn't present.

Firstly I don't think that even a supercharged LS 7 powered CTSV is going to get anywhere near 300 mph and the fact is we've got Veyrons being able to use public roads in Germany at around similar speeds as NASCAR racers.So why the big deal about allowing some proper cars to be used in some proper racing on a decent track like Le Mans (without the Mulsanne chicanes) and some upraded big ovals in the States in a Euro/AM unlimited production saloon car challenge series.Which certainly would be 'production relevant' if the rules required that all engine and driveline componentry used was made available to customers on the production options list.But how can you say that it wouldn't be production relevant when supercharged big V8's are already available in the production saloon car car inventory of Jaguar,Mercedes and GM cars like the CTSV ???.

It's my guess that the issue is more about the rule makers being scared of upstaging lesser series as soon as the fans realised that there's a series like that on offer.

But no 'racing' that involves equalised restricted small capacity V8's,pushrod or otherwise,doesn't have any connection whatsoever with the type of logic that led to racing involving unrestricted 426 Hemi and 429 Ford powered production saloon cars.Whereas my idea does with the added interest of international competition between manufacturers.

So NASCAR sucks because the cars aren't Veyrons, or because they aren't the runs they raced in the 70s?

I don't think that a Veyron fits the description of big engined supercharged production saloon car.However a supercharged CTSV,Jaguar XFR,and Mercedes AMG 6.3 does.NASCAR as it stands compared to unrestricted production saloon car racing between production cars like those definitely does suck.

But no 'racing' that involves equalised restricted small capacity V8's,pushrod or otherwise,doesn't have any connection whatsoever with the type of logic that led to racing involving unrestricted 426 Hemi and 429 Ford powered production saloon cars.Whereas my idea does with the added interest of international competition between manufacturers.

What is all the bru-ha-ha about engines with blowers on?An engine with large displacement can do it with less stress and garbage under the hood.

Detroit high performance parts books are full of large displacement unblown engines, but not blown engines.

The cars that ran the Hemis whether Dodge or Ford, were at least five hundred pounds heavier, and had far more ground clearance due to the fact they were running on producton chassis with mod. production steel bodies and not the aero farces running today.The cars were NOT unrestricted. They had to meet homologation rules. To say otherwise is silly.

What this is all about is they aren't making engines that YOU want to see, I'm quite happy myself besides having proved many a time that the GM "LS" V8 series is superior to a quad cam Toyota V8 many a time - there is not one single area the Toyota is superior in losing in weight, power, size and a bit surprisingly, fuel consumption.

"Oh it's got pushrods and 2 valves, it must be a relic" ..... that is a prejudice not a fact.

Selling well in cars such as? The product mix for V8s is 16% and falling. How many manufacturers are contributing pushrods to the mix? Ford doesn't sell a pushrod engine anymore, IIRC. CAFE 2016/2025 haven't even kicked in yet.

OHV is a relic, but relic status is not a problem. Clinging to the relic (NASCAR management style) is the problem. OHV makes up a small fraction of all V8 production engine designs, which reduces participation from the manufacturers. Reduced participation stunts growth, investment, and exposure, especially in the modern era when it is customary for foreign auto manufacturers to put billions of DI in the US market. The world is downsizing, downspeeding, and turbocharging. As far as I'm concerned, that plays to OHVs strengths, but it probably won't change the OHC architecture of most manufacturers.

NASCAR want to grow. They've been bouncing around on stagnant viewership and attendance numbers for a while now. Suggesting they need to evolve is hardly controversial. They are setting themselves up for prolonged decline by trying to run 1960s motorsport in a 21st world where car companies are reviling and V8s are killing mother earth. The situation is only going to get worse as the cost of regulation is piled on top of customers. NASCAR was once ahead of the curve. They need to get ahead of the curve again or they will have to pray for a miracle, boogity boogity boogity, amen.

What is all the bru-ha-ha about engines with blowers on?An engine with large displacement can do it with less stress and garbage under the hood.

Detroit high performance parts books are full of large displacement unblown engines, but not blown engines.

The cars that ran the Hemis whether Dodge or Ford, were at least five hundred pounds heavier, and had far more ground clearance due to the fact they were running on producton chassis with mod. production steel bodies and not the aero farces running today.The cars were NOT unrestricted. They had to meet homologation rules. To say otherwise is silly.

Homologation rules are what defines 'production car' racing.Race cars are restricted to the point where the production road Mclaren F1 was actually a more powerful car than the Le Mans race spec version was.The idea of making a forced induction engine last the distance is the type of challenge that makes for progress not the present idea of holding progress back by using over regulated small capacity naturally aspirated engines.It was homologation rules that made the NASCAR racers of the 1960's more relevant to production cars than NASCAR race cars are today.

So what are the rule makers so scared of in allowing unrestricted production cars to race with homolagtion rules which just say only cars and parts that can be ordered from the production option list.I'm saying let's allow the combination of both unlimited engine capacity 'and' forced induction which is the difference between my thinking and what you're saying.

The fact is forced induction makes large capacity engines go even better.Which is why the new supercharged CTSV is faster than the old naturally aspirated one in which case the LS 7 engine would obviously make the thing even faster and where better to prove the superiority of it's engineering than on the track and there's nothing better than a good old fashioned horsepower race in a production car racing environment for making progress in production car design and sales.

Firstly I don't think that even a supercharged LS 7 powered CTSV is going to get anywhere near 300 mph and the fact is we've got Veyrons being able to use public roads in Germany at around similar speeds as NASCAR racers.So why the big deal about allowing some proper cars to be used in some proper racing on a decent track like Le Mans (without the Mulsanne chicanes) and some upraded big ovals in the States in a Euro/AM unlimited production saloon car challenge series.Which certainly would be 'production relevant' if the rules required that all engine and driveline componentry used was made available to customers on the production options list.But how can you say that it wouldn't be production relevant when supercharged big V8's are already available in the production saloon car car inventory of Jaguar,Mercedes and GM cars like the CTSV ???.

It's my guess that the issue is more about the rule makers being scared of upstaging lesser series as soon as the fans realised that there's a series like that on offer.

But no 'racing' that involves equalised restricted small capacity V8's,pushrod or otherwise,doesn't have any connection whatsoever with the type of logic that led to racing involving unrestricted 426 Hemi and 429 Ford powered production saloon cars.Whereas my idea does with the added interest of international competition between manufacturers.

A production CTS-V, running down Mulsanne at full chat with a supercharged race-tuned LS7, would be vaporized in the event of a high speed crash. Even if modern rollcage standards were improved, it probably wouldn't stand much of a chance. You could limit the engines to Group N stock specification, but anyone will tell you that stock engine racing turns production engines into racing engines not vice versa. It's been that way since the beginning. You'd need some kind of equivalency or strict homologation papers to control materials.

I don't think you understand the danger of high-speed or the relationship between production cars and race cars. The manufacturers want a link between the race engine and the production engine, like displacement, bore, stroke, block, etc. They don't want to homologate a stock engine from one of their saloons, and then take it racing in stock form. In many instances, they don't want to race the actual production body without extensive modification ($$$).

It never will be a manufacturer series b/c all of the components are homologated and offered for sale to the teams. Introducing more manufacturers is not going to change the game, though they would have to be careful who they let in. Certain manufacturers have a history of lobbying for rules changes and getting sanctioning bodies into a bind.

A production CTS-V, running down Mulsanne at full chat with a supercharged race-tuned LS7, would be vaporized in the event of a high speed crash. Even if modern rollcage standards were improved, it probably wouldn't stand much of a chance. You could limit the engines to Group N stock specification, but anyone will tell you that stock engine racing turns production engines into racing engines not vice versa. It's been that way since the beginning. You'd need some kind of equivalency or strict homologation papers to control materials.

I don't think you understand the danger of high-speed or the relationship between production cars and race cars. The manufacturers want a link between the race engine and the production engine, like displacement, bore, stroke, block, etc. They don't want to homologate a stock engine from one of their saloons, and then take it racing in stock form. In many instances, they don't want to race the actual production body without extensive modification ($$$).

Firstly I think even the current supercharged CTSV,or any other type of similar powered production car,would be annihilated in the event of any high speed crash at anything like their full potential regardless of wether they are being used on the autobahn or the race track.However it's going to be a boring life if all such cars were outlawed or speed limited to surviveable impact speeds on the basis of that risk.Although having said that the present situation in NASCAR of tightly bunched fast moving cars,not surprisingly, doesn't exactly have a record of casualty free racing.

So what are the rule makers so scared of in allowing unrestricted production cars to race with homolagtion rules which just say only cars and parts that can be ordered from the production option list.I'm saying let's allow the combination of both unlimited engine capacity 'and' forced induction which is the difference between my thinking and what you're saying.

The fact is forced induction makes large capacity engines go even better.Which is why the new supercharged CTSV is faster than the old naturally aspirated one in which case the LS 7 engine would obviously make the thing even faster and where better to prove the superiority of it's engineering than on the track and there's nothing better than a good old fashioned horsepower race in a production car racing environment for making progress in production car design and sales.

The manufacturers do not really care if the new CTS-V is faster than the old CTS-V. Most of their cars are not performance vehicles, and most buyers can't afford superfluous technology on a premium low-volume model. The project manager cares, but the boardroom is basically indifferent. GT racing is a bit different b/c the manufacturers want to test the integrity of their chassis, but NASCAR is not GT racing.

As I've said before, spec regulations are not the problem with NASCAR. Besides a few disgruntled fans, who want custom tube frames and more production-oriented engines, everyone is okay with it. That's the reality of the situation, and I don't think spec really hurts a series based on high-speed banked circuit racing. The problem with NASCAR is that the product development sucks. They are working on the aesthetics, which is necessary to make the manufacturers and fans happy. Unfortunately, the engines and the race format lag behind in antiquity. NASCAR knows Sprint Cup is incomplete, and that's why they are working on the new GT/TouringCar regs with DTM and SuperGT. Unfortunately, NASCAR want to use the same basic sanctioning format (spec) and the same sporting regulations (artificial racing) to create NASCAR by another name. Why? Circuit racing and banked ovals are apples and oranges, but NASCAR just apply their formula and hope it works.

Have NASCAR got it right? No. NASCAR's focus limits its growth potential, and the sport is a monumental underachievement. NASCAR doesn't see its own potential so they are content to be king of the fools. Not much of an accolade, but don't tell NASCAR.

Have NASCAR got it right? No. NASCAR's focus limits its growth potential, and the sport is a monumental underachievement. NASCAR doesn't see its own potential so they are content to be king of the fools. Not much of an accolade, but don't tell NASCAR.

Well let's see- how is Indy Car racing doing; how is road racing doing, now drag and short track racing is doing pretty well.

The fact is there is damn little room to zero room for growth and specs. eliminates the odd-ball or unique vehicles that once made racing so fascinating and attractive.

If NASCAR makes some asinine moves like Indianapolis cars and road racing did, it will go down the poop shoot river like they are.

The manufacturers do not really care if the new CTS-V is faster than the old CTS-V. Most of their cars are not performance vehicles, and most buyers can't afford superfluous technology on a premium low-volume model. The project manager cares, but the boardroom is basically indifferent. GT racing is a bit different b/c the manufacturers want to test the integrity of their chassis, but NASCAR is not GT racing.

As I've said before, spec regulations are not the problem with NASCAR. Besides a few disgruntled fans, who want custom tube frames and more production-oriented engines, everyone is okay with it. That's the reality of the situation, and I don't think spec really hurts a series based on high-speed banked circuit racing. The problem with NASCAR is that the product development sucks. They are working on the aesthetics, which is necessary to make the manufacturers and fans happy. Unfortunately, the engines and the race format lag behind in antiquity. NASCAR knows Sprint Cup is incomplete, and that's why they are working on the new GT/TouringCar regs with DTM and SuperGT. Unfortunately, NASCAR want to use the same basic sanctioning format (spec) and the same sporting regulations (artificial racing) to create NASCAR by another name. Why? Circuit racing and banked ovals are apples and oranges, but NASCAR just apply their formula and hope it works.

Have NASCAR got it right? No. NASCAR's focus limits its growth potential, and the sport is a monumental underachievement. NASCAR doesn't see its own potential so they are content to be king of the fools. Not much of an accolade, but don't tell NASCAR.

All that seems to me to be a sad reflection of the fact that we're going backwards from the days when the average US worker could go to see a NASCAR race at the weekend and then go and buy something like the 426 Hemi powered road rocket that was racing there on Monday.

The fact that our economies and the modern idea of 'racing' mean we can't now bring that up to date by allowing European and American fans and potential buyers to do exactly the same thing with modern day versions of such cars just totally seems to defeat the whole object of the idea of 'stock' saloon car 'racing' to me.

All that seems to me to be a sad reflection of the fact that we're going backwards from the days when the average US worker could go to see a NASCAR race at the weekend and then go and buy something like the 426 Hemi powered road rocket that was racing there on Monday.

The fact that our economies and the modern idea of 'racing' mean we can't now bring that up to date by allowing European and American fans and potential buyers to do exactly the same thing with modern day versions of such cars just totally seems to defeat the whole object of the idea of 'stock' saloon car 'racing' to me.

Yes, the US auto industry has been going backwards since the 60s-70s, with only a brief respite during the SUV boom. Where have you been for the last 40 years? The American V8 RWD power saloon is dead as a doornail unless you're a 1% with enough money to buy a premium brand.

As much as I like the idea of racing production bodies on 1 mile or 1.5 mile circuits, it won't save the V8. The American V8 won't be a significant part of the product mix unless it gets updated to meet consumer demand and government regulation. NASCAR need to do it b/c the manufacturers are more interested in making the V8 a rich man's toy. Needless to say, the situation isn't good for NASCAR. They are clueless. They just realized this year that the 358 lacks fuel injection.